Again, when I passed by the topic of the speeches of Jesus on the Cross, it appears that I could have had no other motive than the dictates of my native evasiveness.  An ecclesiastical dignitary may have respectable reasons for declining a fencing match “in sight of Gethsemane and Calvary”; but an ecclesiastical “Infidel”!  Never.  It is obviously impossible that, in the belief that “the greater includes the less,” I, having declared the Gospel evidence in general, as to the sayings of Jesus, to be of questionable value, thought it needless to select for illustration of my views, those particular instances which were likely to be most offensive to persons of another way of thinking.  But any supposition that may have been entertained that the old familiar tones of the ecclesiastical war-drum will tempt me to engage in such needless discussion had better be renounced.  I shall do nothing of the kind.  Let it suffice that I ask my readers to turn to the twenty-third chapter of Luke (revised version), verse thirty-four, and he will find in the margin

     Some ancient authorities omit:  And Jesus said, “Father, forgive
     them, for they know not what they do.”

So that, even as late as the fourth century, there were ancient authorities, indeed some of the most ancient and weightiest, who either did not know of this utterance, so often quoted as characteristic of Jesus, or did not believe it had been uttered.

Many years ago, I received an anonymous letter, which abused me heartily for my want of moral courage in not speaking out.  I thought that one of the oddest charges an anonymous letter-writer could bring.  But I am not sure that the plentiful sowing of the pages of the article with which I am dealing with accusations of evasion, may not seem odder to those who consider that the main strength of the answers with which I have been favoured (in this review and elsewhere) is devoted, not to anything in the text of my first paper, but to a note which occurs at p. 84.  In this I say: 

Dr. Wace tells us:  “It may be asked how far we can rely on the accounts we possess of our Lord’s teaching on these subjects.”  And he seems to think the question appropriately answered by the assertion that it “ought to be regarded as settled by M. Renan’s practical surrender of the adverse case.”

I requested Dr. Wace to point out the passages of M. Renan’s works in which, as he affirms, this “practical surrender” (not merely as to the age and authorship of the Gospels, be it observed, but as to their historical value) is made, and he has been so good as to do so.  Now let us consider the parts of Dr. Wace’s citation from Renan which are relevant to the issue:—­